Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 11

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Vacuum energy is non-positive for (2 + 1)-dimensional holographic CFTs

Hickling, Andrew, Wiseman, Toby·2016·Classical and Quantum Gravity
DOI 10.1088/0264-9381/33/4/045009
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

We consider a (2 + 1)-dimensional holographic CFT on a static spacetime with globally timelike Killing vector. Taking the spatial geometry to be closed but otherwise general we expect a non-trivial vacuum energy at zero temperature due to the Casimir effect. We assume a thermal state has an AdS/CFT dual description as a static smooth solution to gravity with a negative cosmological constant, which ends only on the conformal boundary or horizons. A bulk geometric argument then provides an upper bound on the ratio of CFT free energy to temperature. Considering the zero temperature limit of this bound implies the vacuum energy of the CFT is non-positive. Furthermore the vacuum energy must be negative unless the boundary metric is locally conformal to a product of time with a constant curvature space. We emphasise the argument does not require the zero temperature bulk geometry to be smooth, but only that singularities are ‘good’ so are hidden by horizons at finite temperature.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1088/0264-9381/33/4/045009

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 31

  1. Maldacena, 1999, Int. J. Theor. Phys., 38, 1113, 10.1023/A:1026654312961 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Marolf, 2014, Class. Quantum Grav., 31, 10.1088/0264-9381/31/6/063001 · DOI
  3. Horowitz, 1998, Phys. Rev. D, 59, 10.1103/PhysRevD.59.026005 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Myers, 1999, Phys. Rev. D, 60, 10.1103/PhysRevD.60.046002 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Henningson, 1998, J. High Energy Phys., 10.1088/1126-6708/1998/07/023 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Balasubramanian, 1999, Commun. Math. Phys., 208, 413, 10.1007/s002200050764 · DOI · Paper page
  7. de Haro, 2001, Commun. Math. Phys., 217, 595, 10.1007/s002200100381 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Skenderis, 2002, Class. Quantum Grav., 19, 5849, 10.1088/0264-9381/19/22/306 · DOI
  9. Fulling, 1989, London Math. Soc. Stud. Texts, 17, 1
  10. Candelas, 1984, Nucl. Phys. B, 237, 397, 10.1016/0550-3213(84)90001-4 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Graham, 1991, Adv. Math., 87, 186, 10.1016/0001-8708(91)90071-E · DOI
  12. Anderson, 2002, J. High Energy Phys., 10.1088/1126-6708/2002/10/063 · DOI
  13. Gubser, 2000, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys., 4, 679, 10.4310/ATMP.2000.v4.n3.a6 · DOI
  14. Galloway, 2015, J. High Energy Phys., 10.1007/JHEP06(2015)051 · DOI
  15. Wang, 2001, J. Diff. Geom., 57, 273, 10.4310/jdg/1090348112 · DOI
  16. Boucher, 1984, Phys. Rev. D, 30, 2447, 10.1103/PhysRevD.30.2447 · DOI
  17. Chrusciel, 2001, J. Math. Phys., 42, 1779, 10.1063/1.1340869 · DOI
  18. Anderson, 2001, Math. Res. Lett., 8, 171, 10.4310/MRL.2001.v8.n2.a6 · DOI
  19. Kunduri, 2013, Living Rev. Relativ., 16, 8, 10.12942/lrr-2013-8 · DOI
  20. Hickling, 2015, Class. Quantum Grav., 32, 10.1088/0264-9381/32/3/035008 · DOI
  21. Abramowicz, 1988, GRG, 20, 1173, 10.1007/BF00758937 · DOI
  22. Adam, 2012, Class. Quantum Grav., 29, 10.1088/0264-9381/29/16/165002 · DOI
  23. Hawking, 1983, Commun. Math. Phys., 87, 577, 10.1007/BF01208266 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Witten, 1998, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys., 2, 505, 10.4310/ATMP.1998.v2.n3.a3 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Aharony, 2006, Class. Quantum Grav., 23, 2171, 10.1088/0264-9381/23/7/001 · DOI
  26. Emparan, 2009, J. High Energy Phys., 10.1088/1126-6708/2009/08/012 · DOI
  27. Figueras, 2014, J. High Energy Phys., 10.1007/JHEP06(2014)025 · DOI
  28. Gibbons, 1983, Nucl. Phys. B, 218, 173, 10.1016/0550-3213(83)90480-7 · DOI
  29. Cheng, 2005, J. High Energy Phys., 10.1088/1126-6708/2005/08/107 · DOI
  30. Aharony, 2008, J. High Energy Phys., 10.1088/1126-6708/2008/10/091 · DOI
  31. Gibbons, 1979, Commun. Math. Phys., 66, 291, 10.1007/BF01197189 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

See all 11

Metadata

Authors
Hickling, A., & Wiseman, T.
Venue
Classical and Quantum Gravity
Publisher
IOP Publishing
Published
2016-01-27
Volume
33
Issue
4
Pages
045009
ISSN
  • 0264-9381
  • 1361-6382
DOI
10.1088/0264-9381/33/4/045009
Cited by
11
References
0
Licence
Funders
Science and Technology Facilities Council (ST/J0003533/1)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Vacuum energy is non-positive for (2 + 1)-dimensional holographic CFTs. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1088/0264-9381/33/4/045009
The paper
Hickling, A., & Wiseman, T. (2016). Vacuum energy is non-positive for (2 + 1)-dimensional holographic CFTs. Classical and Quantum Gravity. https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/33/4/045009

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.